Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_list_merge_requests

List merge requests for a GitLab project to track code changes and review status. Specify the project path to retrieve open and pending merge requests.

Instructions

Lists merge requests for a given GitLab project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesThe path of the GitLab project (e.g., "namespace/project-name").

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:149-162 (registration)
    Tool registration and input schema definition for gitlab_list_merge_requests
      name: 'gitlab_list_merge_requests',
      description: 'Lists merge requests for a given GitLab project.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          projectPath: {
            type: 'string',
            description:
              'The path of the GitLab project (e.g., "namespace/project-name").',
          },
        },
        required: ['projectPath'],
      },
    },
  • Handler logic in the MCP server that processes calls to gitlab_list_merge_requests by invoking the GitLab service
    case 'gitlab_list_merge_requests': {
      if (!gitlabService) {
        throw new Error('GitLab service is not initialized.');
      }
      const { projectPath } = args as { projectPath: string };
      const result = await gitlabService.listMergeRequests(projectPath);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Helper method in GitLabService that performs the actual API call to list merge requests for the specified project
    async listMergeRequests(projectPath: string): Promise<GitLabMergeRequest[]> {
      const encodedProjectPath = encodeURIComponent(projectPath);
      return this.callGitLabApi<GitLabMergeRequest[]>(
        `projects/${encodedProjectPath}/merge_requests`,
      );
    }
  • Type definition for GitLabMergeRequest, the return type of the listMergeRequests method.
    export interface GitLabMergeRequest {
      id: number;
      iid: number;
      title: string;
      author: {
        name: string;
        username: string;
      };
      updated_at: string;
      web_url: string;
      project_name?: string;
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Lists') but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, filtering options, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns multiple items.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a list tool. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., MR titles, IDs, states), how results are limited or paginated, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'projectPath' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid project paths or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('merge requests for a given GitLab project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_project_issues' or 'gitlab_list_branches' beyond the resource type, missing explicit differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_merge_request_details' for specific MRs or 'gitlab_list_all_projects' for broader context, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HainanZhao/mcp-gitlab-jira'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server